back to article UK will build new nuclear bomb subs, says Defence Secretary

The United Kingdom is to get a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines to deter Soviet President Putin from invading West Germany, the Defence Secretary announced on Saturday. While Sir Michael Fallon didn't quite say that, what he did say was this: Britain’s ballistic missile submarines are the ultimate guarantee of our …

Page:

  1. OliP

    We cannot know what new dangers we might face in the 2030s, 2040s and 2050s so we are acting now to replace them.

    As history has told us repeatedly, its usually the people you arm about a decade or so before-hand.

    Maybe stop exporting arms to half the world, and stop antagonising the other half and we might push this issue forward?

    1. tr1ck5t3r

      You also forgot when considering how much we import and how long radiation hangs around that it makes sense to nuke our suppliers including our food suppliers. Thanks to just in time deliveries the major UK supermarkets only have 3-5days food in the supplychain to feed the whole country. You cant even magic up mushrooms in that time so its would be back to rations for everyone.

      Nothing like a hungry animal to make an angry animal. Dont be a diva have a snickers!

      Nukes are just big loud flash bang whallops to keep the population under control and will generally target large population densities so its useful for population reduction which is something we might need when the Grand Solar Minimum takes full effect in 2020. Lets face it we dont even have that many nukes so what use are they really and thats before you get into defensive measures that can take them out, examples being defensive missle systems like Israel's Iron dome, and countless air force personnel for jet fighters in various countries. Ask yourself why infrasound the silent killer is not used as a weapon, maybe it doesnt have the psychological effect on the populaces mind to help maintain that charade of being in control/law & order because the public are like herding cats. Ask why nuclear suitcase bombs are not mentioned even though they could be smuggled in and deployed in many busy shopping centres targeting large parts of the innocent (or should that be stupid) population?

      Its interesting reading that the UK policy in the event of a nuke attack was to use law enforcement to keep the populations in their houses, so towns & city populations would be prevented from leaving, as the country folk could fend for themselves and survive knowing what to do to carry on in the future. The old ways are best.

      1. Mark Dempster

        I think you need to do a bit more reading up on the subject. Each of the current class of submarine carries 92 independently-targetted warheads - seems to negate your 'we dont even have that many nukes so what use are they really' comment...

        There's no way that ANY defensive missile system or jet fighter will take out an ICBM - they travel way too high & too fast - I think you're assuming they're something closer to cruise missiles. And the individual warheads would be even harder to target.

        1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

          There's no way that ANY defensive missile system or jet fighter will take out an ICBM

          That is a load of bull.

          Latest S400, David's Sling and other developments by key players in that area are specifically designed to do exactly that. S400 has an engagement range of 230km against targets traveling at re-entry velocity (5km/s) _AND_ with ICBM size. David sling is shorter, but has actually been fired in anger. This is now, out there, actually deployed. While they can take out only up to 3-4 warheads per battery, they can do it today.

          If we look into the near future, S500 is specifically - one battery engaging 10 warheads so one battery can take the full MIRV load of one Trident missile.

          It always makes me chuckle when the Russians make such a big deal of USA ICBM interceptors and Aegis installations while at the same time having MULTIPLE times the USA anti-ICBM capacity and developing both missile defenses and countermeasures against missile defenses as fast as they possibly can.

          1. El_Fev

            Ohh ffs the fact that 4 morons actually upvoted your comment is fucking incredible! if you think that the S400 is going to take out multiple warheads at re-entry speeds you need your fucking head seeing too!

            Being able to spot a ballistic warhead and being able to destroy one is hard enough, doing the same with hundred plus incoming, its not like missile command! Jesus Wept you children need to stay off the fucking internet!

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              ffs....4 morons.....fucking incredible! ....you need your fucking head seeing too!.... Jesus Wept you children need to stay off the fucking internet!

              I thought I was impolite, but I think we can totally discount your views if they need that much abuse to support them.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "its not like missile command"

              Actually it is quite like missile command...You are aiming to detonate shrapnel creating blasts ideally in the path or at least in the vicinity of incoming missiles.

              The S400 (an anti-aircraft system) might not be able to attack incoming warheads, but other systems potentially can....

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Now we know how you feel - do you have any actual facts?

              "Ohh ffs the fact that 4 morons actually upvoted your comment is fucking incredible! if you think that the S400 is going to take out multiple warheads at re-entry speeds you need your fucking head seeing too!"

              Apart from your emotional rants, do you have any actual concrete information on the subject? Or do you sincerely believe that your wishful thinking trumps engineering specifications?

              1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

                Re: Now we know how you feel - do you have any actual facts?

                "Or do you sincerely believe that your wishful thinking trumps engineering specifications?"

                "I can see why you're not in management." -- Dilbert's PHB

          2. Suricou Raven

            There's an obvious counter to intecepters: Send more missiles. That's why countries that have nukes tend to have a lot of them. You only need one per city to get through.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Cost-effective

              ABMs cost a lot less than ICBMs.

              1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

                Re: Cost-effective

                Mmh. Doubtful. Unless your potential adversary is nice enough to let you set up your ABMs conveniently close to his ICBM launch sites, you'll need a lot of ABMs to even have a slim chance to take down a few ICBMs. MIRVs, SSBNs, SSBNs launching IMBMs with MIRVs - the acronyms alone are problematic.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "It always makes me chuckle when the Russians make such a big deal of USA ICBM interceptors and Aegis installations..."

            You seem to know what you are talking about, so I am surprised to see you overlook the vital difference - location, location, location.

            The Russian missiles will be located (almost exclusively) within the frontiers of Russia, and so will be the very last line of defence. They will not get two chances.

            In stark contrast, the Americans are now lining up their ABM installations pretty much right along the Russian border, so they can shoot down Russian ICBMs as soon as they get off the ground. Then they have another opportunity against surviving ICBMs as they approach their targets.

            1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

              Archtech,

              In stark contrast, the Americans are now lining up their ABM installations pretty much right along the Russian border, so they can shoot down Russian ICBMs as soon as they get off the ground. Then they have another opportunity against surviving ICBMs as they approach their targets.

              Nope.

              Firstly you need to remember that the US system is being deployed to defend US allies. That's not something that the Russians are quite so bothered about - for one thing they don't have as many allies. So it makes things a bit more complex - and deployment just at home doesn't work.

              Secondly the US aren't deploying in sufficient numbers to do anything serious about the Russian strategic missiles, and aren't talking about doing so in future. They're talking about 1 or 2 installations in Europe, 1 in Alaska and one in South Korea, with a couple Aegis ships kicking around to cover North Korea. That's not enough for Russia, but China (like the UK and France) only operates a minimum deterrent - so is talking about upping its nuclear forces.

              Thirdly the US sites are in the wrong place. They're in Romania, the Southern tip of Korea and the Sea of Japan - whereas the Russian missiles are in Siberia and on submarines. Plus Russia are threatening to station them on cruise missiles in Kaliningrad. None of those interception locations works for missiles being fired over the Pole (apart from Alaska a bit).

              So no, the Russians are just pointlessly whingeing. China has a bit more of a point, but then if they didn't want the US to station missile defence in Korea, they could do more to control North Korea.

        2. itzman

          RE: no way that ANY defensive missile system or jet fighter will take out an ICBM

          I think you are mistaken.

          Anti missile missiles exist, and work, as demonstrated way back in te first gulf war, when they were deployed against tactical nukes of short range, and worked. Do you really think technology has stood still?

          Why do you think MIRV technology exists? Because single warheads are vulnerable to point defences.

          "The bomber will always get through" was shown to be complete BS in WWII. Throw enough flak into the air and there isn't any space left for bombers. Same with ABMs. If you have enough, warheads won't get through.

          ICBMS tipped with MIRV nuclear warheads are there in quantity to make sure that some get through. Enough to discourage attack. But there are plenty of ways to defend.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: RE: no way that ANY defensive missile system or jet fighter will take out an ICBM

            '"The bomber will always get through" was shown to be complete BS in WWII'.

            Although even when it did get through, it usually proved incapable of hitting any target smaller than, say, ten miles across. On one occasion, a British bomber set off (admittedly in bad weather, at night) to attack a German airfield in Holland, and managed to put an RAF airfield in Norfolk out of action for quite some time. The crew returned to base believing they had accomplished their mission.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "There's no way that ANY defensive missile system or jet fighter will take out an ICBM - they travel way too high & too fast..."

          That turns out not necessarily to be the case.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(missile)

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-500_(missile_system)

          "The S-500 is a new generation surface-to-air missile system. It is designed for intercepting and destroying intercontinental ballistic missiles as well as hypersonic cruise missiles and aircraft, for air defense against Airborne Early Warning and Control, and for jamming aircraft. With a planned range of 600 km (370 mi) for Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) and 400 km (250 mi) for the air defense, the S-500 would be able to detect and simultaneously engage up to 10 ballistic supersonic targets flying at a speed of 5 kilometres per second (3.1 mi/s; 18,000 km/h; 11,000 mph) to a limit of 7 km/s (4.3 mi/s; 25,000 km/h; 16,000 mph). It also aims at destroying hypersonic cruise missiles and other aerial targets at speeds of higher than Mach 5 as well as spacecraft. The altitude of a target engaged can be as high as 180–200 km (110–120 mi)".

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Has it been tested against anything at near orbital velocity? Bearing in the mind the US THAADS system has only had partial success in tests. Of course that was designed to deal with threats from Iran and North Korea, who weren't expected to have the most complex missiles. But I'm sure they'd have made it better if it was that easy.

            The UK already fit fewer warheads to our Trident missiles than the spec allows. Which obviously gives more room for decoys - and also more space/weight to stick small rockets on the warheads so they can change direction and make interception even harder.

            Intercepting the missiles on the way up still looks a lot more doable than getting them on the way down.

    2. Chris G

      Extreme

      Having read a lot of the comments so far, I can see many of you are not taking this as seriously as you should.

      "We use our nuclear fleet daily to deter the most extreme threats"

      So the UK is going to nuke the IoT and possibly GCHQ?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Extreme

        So the UK is going to nuke the IoT and possibly GCHQ?

        If that's your line of thinking I suspect Mrs May would also be a target, but it's generally believed a nation's military should aim at targets in OTHER nations :).

        What puzzles me is that they seem to go with the same old nuclear reactors despite thorium reactors becoming mature enough for use. I would have thought that a pebble reactor would be much safer in a tin can that can suffer the occasional shake-up from depth charges and other unpleasantness, but I'm no expert.

        1. VinceH
          Mushroom

          Re: Extreme

          So the UK is going to nuke the IoT and possibly GCHQ?

          If that's your line of thinking I suspect Mrs May would also be a target, but it's generally believed a nation's military should aim at targets in OTHER nations :).

          She's sure to go abroad at some point.

        2. 's water music

          Re: Victor mature

          Western sub technology has always veered very much to the conservative side. That's why USSR subs tended to outclass them in performance and casualty rates

          1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

            Re: Victor mature / reactor designs

            The nicest thing about nuclear reactors on submarines is that you'll always have enough coolant availiable.

            1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

              Re: Victor mature, again

              Victor Mature. The penny dropped at last...

      2. JaitcH
        Unhappy

        Re: Extreme But ONLY with USA Permission

        Any devices (rockets, ships, etc) that contain US products are subject to use with US authorisation only.

        It's how the USA controls aircraft sales to countries it doesn't like.

        The Trident missile is a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) equipped with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) and are sold to the UK in accordance with the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement, as amended. It was originally developed by Lockheed Missiles and Space Corporation. The four Royal Navy Vanguard-class submarines have British warheads.

    3. Mark 85

      Part of this is that the military usually arms up based on how the last war was fought. Never on the next one. There's two problems here with any nuke weapon... "can it be stolen" and/or "how will it be used". Of course it can be stolen.. anything can.

      It's the "how will it be used" question is the problem. If MAD were the only reason because your enemy is rational than fine. However, what if, the Daesh got one... and managed to launch it? Would the US, UK, Russian, or any of the others retaliate and turn their Caliphate into smoking glass? That would play right into their "lake of fire", "battle to end all battles" scenario. What about NK? Would there be retaliation? There's the problem. I

      The problem became even murkier recently with a certain US Presidential candidate repeatedly asking during a security/policy briefing by government officials: "Well, why can't we use nukes? We have them."

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Diagnosis: psychotic or moronic (or both)

        'The problem became even murkier recently with a certain US Presidential candidate repeatedly asking during a security/policy briefing by government officials: "Well, why can't we use nukes? We have them."'

        In any rational state, this question would have been answered by a swift injection of tranquilliser, followed by removal to a safe institution. In today's USA, it will no doubt be followed by inauguration as "POTUS".

        With apologies to various (sane) American journalists down the years, no one has ever failed to become President by over-estimating the bloodthirstiness and stupidity of the American voter.

    4. itzman
      Holmes

      Re: Maybe stop exporting arms ....

      48 upvotes at the time of writing shows the principles of belling that cat are alive and well.

  2. Warm Braw

    Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

    Given that the procurement process always seems to deliver results that fall short of the jingoistic rhetoric of the MoD, I presume the new vessels, should they ever emerge, will be Vainglorious, Vagarious, Vacuous and Vaporous?

    1. Rich 11

      Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

      Given that they're described as Successor class, the likely names I came up with were Antipater, Craterus, Antigonus, and Ptolemy.

      1. Known Hero

        Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

        How about

        Bob,Simon,Oscar,Dave ?

        1. Brenda McViking
          Trollface

          Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

          I think we need to ask the internet what to name them by popular vote

          1. Pedigree-Pete
            Thumb Up

            Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

            Obv. Subby MacSubFace. PP

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

            What? Boaty McBoatface?

            Gets my vote :p

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

              Don't flaunt your ignorance about naval matters! That should be "Shippy McShipface" [sic].

              1. Vic

                Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

                Don't flaunt your ignorance about naval matters! That should be "Shippy McShipface" [sic].

                For a submarine?

                I think not...

                Vic.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

                  'Umble hapologies.

          3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

            John, Pail, George, Ringo

            Hugh, Pugh Bafrney McGrew, Cuthbert....

            Mind you, "This leaves just under 15 years ", does anyone think they may have left it too late again, eg aircraft carriers, new nuclear power stations etc?

            1. Ben Boyle

              Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

              Tinky Winky, Dipsy, La La and Po.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Bob,Simon,Oscar,Dave ?

          dave dee dozy beaky mick & tich ?

          1. Anonymous Blowhard

            Re: Bob,Simon,Oscar,Dave ?

            Nukey MacNukeface?

        3. tony2heads
          Coat

          Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

          Bearing it mind that the subs will be running on Windows, how about Bob, Rover and Clippy?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

            The only sensible thing to do is to name the first one the "Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament"

        4. Known Hero

          Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

          @AC you missed it.

          Bob,Simon,Oscar,Dave ?

          Check the capital letters ;)

        5. Captain DaFt

          Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

          How about naming them realistically?

          The Rampant, Contract, Costs, and Overrun?

      2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

        I suspect if they've used the name Successor class, that they'll go with S names. So Swiftsure for example, which is an old Napoleonic era battleship, also was a Dreadnought and was a hunter-killer sub built in the late 60s early 70s. Superb, Spartan etc.

        Unless the Navy have got some old S names kicking around that are more appropriate. So the last in class of the Polaris subs (Resolution Class) was called Revenge - and then when they went for V names with the Trident boats we had the last being Vengeance - so perhaps the 4th Successor class will be called Suck on That?

        1. 's water music

          Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

          I suspect if they've used the name Successor class, that they'll go with S names.

          The first boat shares it's name with the class, hence Upholder class was renamed Unseen when Upholder was leapfrogged by Unseen due to 'technical issues'

        2. joeldillon

          Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

          I suspect it's more successor class, small case s - they're not looking to commission HMS Successor, they just haven't picked a lead name for the class yet at all.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

      The Senior service has a habit of recycling names.

      Previous Vanguard was HM's last battleship, the last Vengeance and Victorious were aircraft carriers (in some sense the successor to the battleship as means of taking war to the enemy) but most HMS Vigilants were lesser vessels.

    3. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

      Shouldn't the new names all start with a "W"?

      How about Wailord, Wartortle, Wigglytuff and Wynaut?

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like